Geradi Yudhistira, Jakarta – The government has responded to the impending food crisis by developing a food estate in the Papua regency of Merauke (MIFEE). The question is whether the food estate concept is really helping Indonesian out of the crisis? Or is it creating a new crisis?

The global food crisis of 2008 opened the eyes of the world. At that time, all food prices increased almost 75 percent compared with 2000 baseline prices. The prices of several commodities, such as grains, increased by more than 200 percent.

To anticipate similar problems in the future, the Indonesian government introduced the food estate concept. As a concept, food estate combines food development and food-producing integration within a vast area of land. This concept is expected to be capable of resolving any future food crisis.

In Indonesia, the pioneer food estate in Merauke requires the opening of more than 1 million hectares of land. The mechanism of food estate investments facilitates 32 investors from large companies to develop food production. It means the concept over food security is shifted from people's sovereignty to private sector hands.

Through these investments, MIFEE projected to produce more than 1.95 million tons of rice and tens of millions of tons food each year. The government had even dared to promise MIFEE as a solution to Indonesia's long-term food problems.

Let us recall the cooking oil crisis that hit Indonesia – the largest palm oil producer in the world – in 2008. It turned out that the status had nothing to do with domestic cooking oil supply. Simply put, it was because most of the palm oil products were exported, affecting domestic supply.

It is quite possible that the palm oil crisis experience will repeat itself in the future. Indications of this phenomenon are strengthened in the existing rules regarding MIFEE under Government Regulation No. 18/2010. Article 24 paragraph one of the regulation states that in the event of natural disaster or pest attacks causing inadequate food supply for domestic demand, the products resulting from MIFEE shall be prioritized to meet domestic demand.

The nature of the article implicitly states that the main priority of MIFEE is to export, while domestic supply should not be a pre-requisite, even if we look at the second paragraph of the article, which explains that these conditions must be officially declared by the President. In other words, there is no guarantee MIFEE will solve the problem of food security in the country.

MIFEE's word to ensure community food security in Merauke and surrounding areas should also be criticized. Several cases of starvation in Karawang and Indramayu, known as Indonesia's rice granary regions, have shown there is no correlation between agricultural regions and the welfare of the surrounding community.

Instead, existing data reveals that MIFEE threatens food security in the surrounding community. In Kampung Boepe Kaptel district, indigenous communities have encountered difficulties in obtaining firewood, hunting, finding clean water and accessing their staple food, sago.

MIFEE's assurance to employ local people also has to be revisited. According to a study conducted by the Papuan People's Solidarity to Reject MIFEE (SORPATOM), the mega-project will bring in four million workers from Java and Sumatra. Assuming the four million people will bring friends and families, there will be a migration of eight million people to Merauke.

The population of migrants would vastly outnumber the Merauke population of 52,000, who will be vulnerable to marginalization.

Instead of promoting corporate-based farming approaches such as MIFEE, the government must restore the concept of family-based farming. The concept of traditional agriculture has proved to be the backbone of the economy since ancient times. Market dependency will destroy us, especially when market downturns occur.

It is important for us to follow in the footsteps of Thailand, which has been known for its advanced agriculture.

As a driving force for the economy, Thailand protects farmers in both ownership and market access. The Thai government will not interfere with farmers' land, even in credit agreements. Land cannot serve as collateral, even under agreements with the private sector.

Large-scale private companies serve as farmers' partners and not as the holders of sovereignty over food policy. No wonder original Thai products control 90 percent of the domestic market. The Indonesian government must realize that strengthening and protecting farmers is the best way for strengthening food security, as is already mandated by Article 33 of the Constitution. Modernization of agriculture should not be narrowly viewed as a transfer of authority to large private sector enterprises, but also modernization of management, protection and education for farmers.

Start from vision and we will follow.

[The writer is a researcher at the Alliances for Prosperous Villages and a member of Indonesian Political Economy Association.]